Tenth anniversary of Bahraini blogger’s arrest Receive email alerts April 18, 2013 – Updated on January 20, 2016 “Don’t leave news out of the race” News RSF_en Help by sharing this information BahrainMiddle East – North Africa BahrainMiddle East – North Africa News June 15, 2020 Find out more News German spyware company FinFisher searched by public prosecutors Obstacles to freedom of informationThe authorities have taken a number of measures to restrict journalists entering the country during the Formula One Grand Prix. Only those with “F1 visas” will be allowed entry from 7 to 21 April and they will be prohibited from “violating the security and national welfare of Bahrain.”This will allow the government to arrest journalists who try to cover the human rights situation because it can claim that this violates the country’s “security and national welfare.” So, journalists will be restricted to covering the Formula One event and will be unable to report on any of the on-going political unrest.A number of international media are meanwhile still awaiting visas for their photographers and cameramen. The authorities have already issued visas for the print media’s reporters but, careful as always of their image, are delaying the issuing of the precious visas for other categories.On 14 April, a week before the Grand Prix, the government approved an amendment to article 214 of the penal code, increasing the penalties for defaming the king and insulting the national symbols (flag and coat of arms) to five years in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dinars (20,000 euros).If parliament passes the amendment, it will pose a major threat to freedom of expression and information, especially as the article is loosely worded and allows judges to interpret in an arbitrary manner.News providers in prisonAhmed Humaidan, a well-known photographer who has received 143 international awards for his photography, has been held since 29 December after months of continual harassment by the security forces. He is charged with attacking a police station in Sitra in April 2012, although he was there just to take photos of a protest.Reporters Without Borders recently condemned the inhumane treatment he has received while in detention and called for the withdrawal of the charges. After repeated postponements, his trial is now supposed to take place on 15 May. A court decided in a hearing on 16 April to keep him in detention.On 4 September 2012, the high court of appeal upheld the harsh sentences that a military tribunal had passed in June 2011 on 21 defendants accused of belonging to terrorist organizations and trying to overthrow the government.On 7 January 2012, the court of cassation rejected the appeals filed by 13 human rights activists, including the blogger Abduljalil Al-Singace, spokesman and head of the human rights bureau of the Al-Haq Movement for Civil Liberties and Democracy. As a result, he was one of eight people to be sentenced to life imprisonment.Ali Abdulemam, a fellow blogger and one of the Internet’s pioneers in Bahrain, was sentenced to 15 years in prison in absentia.Although the publication of the findings of Cherif Bassiouni’s Independent Commission of Inquiry in November 2011, under international pressure, forced the Bahraini judicial authorities to order a new trial before a civilian court, the judges still imposed long jail terms on human right activists and news providers.Lack of judicial independenceThe next hearing in the appeal against police officer Sarah Al-Moosa’s acquittal on a charge of torturing a journalist is due to be heard on 12 May. A Manama court cleared her on 22 October (LINK) of torturing and mistreating Bahraini journalist Nazeeha Saeed at Rifaa police station on 22 May 2011.Bahrain correspondent for France 24 and Radio Monte-Carlo Doualiya, Saeed filed a complaint against three of the police officers who were present while she was mistreated but only Moosa was prosecuted. Reporters Without Borders was shocked by her acquittal, and said it illustrated the judicial system’s lack of independence.The prosecutor’s office decision to appeal against the acquittal was clearly motivated by concern for Bahrain’s image and a desire to show the international community that everything possible is being done to punish those responsible for human rights abuses. But the appeal has repeatedly been postponed and there is only one defendant. The many other human rights violators will never be tried and punished. March 17, 2021 Find out more Coronavirus “information heroes” – journalism that saves lives News to go further October 14, 2020 Find out more Read in Arabic (بالعربية)Reporters Without Borders is launching a campaign entitled “Don’t leave news out of the race” for this weekend’s Formula One Grand Prix in Manama. The campaign visual shows an image of Bahrain’s uprising reflected in the helmet of a racing driver who is about to start the race.The aim of the campaign, which will be widely circulated on social networks, is to draw attention to the government policy of orchestrating disinformation about Bahrain’s street protests and the ensuing crackdown, and to the way news and information have been the crackdown’s collateral victims.The Bahraini authorities have skilfully used double talk for more than two years with western governments that have supported democratic aspirations in other countries but have been reluctant to condemn the suppression of democracy in Bahrain, instead accepting its rulers’ insincere promises and superficial reforms.On the eve of this world sports event, Reporters Without Borders wants to draw the international community’s attention to the continuing abuses in Bahrain. Ever since the start of the uprising in 2011, the government has clearly sought to impose the maximum restrictions possible on coverage of the demonstrations and the ensuing crackdown.At the same time, it has mobilized an impressive public relations apparatus to defend its image, promising change, playing up the meagre progress that has been made and waging a disinformation campaign in constant in press releases.The government boasts that, of the 176 recommendations by a working group during its Universal Periodic Review by the United Nations Human Rights Council in September 2012, it has accepted 145 fully and 13 partially. But these commitments are flouted as soon as the cameras leave. Journalists are still prevented from working freely. Organisation Follow the news on Bahrain
Pasadena Will Allow Vaccinated People to Go Without Masks in Most Settings Starting on Tuesday More Cool Stuff Caltech professors Alexei Kitaev (left) and Christopher Umans (right). Credit: Lance Hayashida/Caltech and the EAS Communications Office/CaltechCaltech professors Alexei Kitaev and Christopher Umans have been named Simons Investigators. These appointments are given annually to “support outstanding scientists in their most productive years, when they are establishing creative new research directions.” Investigators receive $100,000 annually for five years.Alexei Kitaev, the Ronald and Maxine Linde Professor of Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, studies quantum computation and related areas of theoretical physics. He was recognized for helping to found the field of topological quantum computing, which involves theoretical computing devices that use a type of elementary particle called an anyon to do computations.“The central idea is to protect quantum information from errors by encoding it in a collective state of many electrons called a ‘topological quantum phase,’” Kitaev says. “I proposed a scheme whereby a piece of quantum information is stored in a pair of particles called Majorana modes at the ends of a microscopic wire. This idea has been elaborated by other physicists and is now being tested experimentally.”In 2012, Kitaev received the $3 million Fundamental Physics Prize for his work developing algorithms and theories to enable quantum computing. A member of Caltech’s Institute for Quantum Information and Matter, he was named a MacArthur Fellow in 2008.Chris Umans, a professor of computer science, studies complexity theory, a field that aims to determine rigorously the possibilities and limitations of computation. “Computational complexity attempts to answer the question: ‘What is computationally feasible given limited computational resources?’” he says.Umans was noted by the Simons Foundation for his work on matrix multiplication, a prominent problem that involves the devising of optimal algorithms for multiplying two n-by-n matrices. The citation also noted his development of a “novel algorithm for polynomial factorization.”“The Simons award was a complete surprise! I am honored to be recognized in this way and grateful to the Simons Foundation for their support,” he says. “Long-term support like this allows researchers to really focus on difficult, long-term problems, and this is incredibly valuable, especially in these fields that are filled with deep, foundational open questions.”Umans also received an NSF CAREER award in 2004 and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship in 2005.The Simons Foundation was founded in 1994 by Jim and Marilyn Simons to advance research in mathematics and the basic sciences. In 2012, the Simons Foundation awarded fellowships to Hirosi Ooguri, the Fred Kavli Professor of Theoretical Physics and Mathematics and Director of Caltech’s Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics, and former professor of astrophysics Christopher Hirata (BS ’01), now a professor of physics at Ohio State University. EVENTS & ENTERTAINMENT | FOOD & DRINK | THE ARTS | REAL ESTATE | HOME & GARDEN | WELLNESS | SOCIAL SCENE | GETAWAYS | PARENTS & KIDS Pasadena’s ‘626 Day’ Aims to Celebrate City, Boost Local Economy Community News Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * 0 commentsShareShareTweetSharePin it HerbeautyYou’ll Want To Get Married Twice Or Even More Just To Put Them OnHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyHe Is Totally In Love With You If He Does These 7 ThingsHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeauty7 Tips To Rejuvenate Winter Dry, Chapped LipsHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeauty9 Of The Best Family Friendly Dog BreedsHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyHere Is What Scientists Say Will Happen When You Eat AvocadosHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeauty12 Female Fashion Trends That Guys Can’t StandHerbeautyHerbeauty Name (required) Mail (required) (not be published) Website Subscribe Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m. Community News First Heatwave Expected Next Week People Two Caltech Professors Named Simons Investigators By LORI DAJOSE Published on Friday, August 7, 2015 | 11:11 am Business News Make a comment faithfernandez More » ShareTweetShare on Google+Pin on PinterestSend with WhatsApp,Virtual Schools PasadenaHomes Solve Community/Gov/Pub SafetyCitizen Service CenterPASADENA EVENTS & ACTIVITIES CALENDARClick here for Movie Showtimes Top of the News Home of the Week: Unique Pasadena Home Located on Madeline Drive, Pasadena
ColumnsThe Collegium & Open Secrets Prof. (Dr) Yogesh Pratap Singh & Lokendra Malik16 Feb 2021 5:05 AMShare This – xUnlike the British and American Constitution, the Indian Constitution provided for a method of appointment that neither gives the executive absolute authority (which the British model does) nor does it permit the Parliament to have any role in the appointment (American model of appointment) that involves a possibility of subjecting judicial appointments to political pressure. The…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginUnlike the British and American Constitution, the Indian Constitution provided for a method of appointment that neither gives the executive absolute authority (which the British model does) nor does it permit the Parliament to have any role in the appointment (American model of appointment) that involves a possibility of subjecting judicial appointments to political pressure. The text of the Constitution postulated a consultative and participatory process which unfortunately has not been adhered to and therefore the inherent check necessary for the maintenance of balance between the institutions exercising the power has been obfuscated. The fallout is that the power to appoint judges has flip-flopped between the executive and the judiciary. In the second judges’ case (1993), this power to appoint judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts has come to vest in a collegium of judges and, the executive’s role was effectively obliterated. This is how India became the first and probably the only country where judges acquired democratic political power to appoint judges through judicial interpretation of the constitutional text. The union executive is now bound by the decisions of the collegium, and if it has a view different from that of the collegium, it can send it back to the collegium with the reasons, asking for a reconsideration. But if the collegium reaffirms its recommendation then the central government is bound to accept it. Because, no timeline is prescribed during which the President of India needs to sign the warrant of appointment of the judges, the central government delays the judicial appointments taking the advantage of this loophole. The central government’s recent decision modifying the recommendation of the collegium to extend the tenure of Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, an Additional Judge of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court by one year is per se against the prevailing scheme. The collegium had recommended giving her two years’ extension but the central government modified the proposal and gave her an extension of just one year as an additional judge. But this is not shocking. The primacy of collegium was directly-indirectly interrogated by the central government on several occasions. The union government unilaterally modified the collegium’s recommendation and segregated the name of Mr. Gopal Subramanium from the panel of four names recommended for appointment as Supreme Court judges. Similarly, the central government had also segregated the name of Justice K.M. Joseph from the recommendation of the collegium and resisted his elevation on the flawed grounds of “fair representation” and a junior in all India seniority list. But a more precarious trend is visible where the Supreme Court collegium itself has changed its recommendations without giving any reasons. The central government did not notify the collegium’s recommendation (2016) to transfer Justice M R Shah from the High Court of Gujarat to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. At that time, the then Chief Justice T S Thakur was heading the collegium. The matter was pushed to an extent that the CJI told the Attorney- General that he would withdraw the judicial work from Justice Shah if the central government did not process his transfer. But the firm central government finally prevailed and the government returned the recommendation to the collegium for its reconsideration in February 2017 after Chief Justice Thakur retired and Justice J S Khehar became the Chief Justice of India. Surprisingly, the collegium headed by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, instead of restating Justice Shah’s transfer, recalled the previous recommendation made by the collegium. Justice Shah continued to serve in the High Court of Gujarat till July 2018 as the second senior-most judge. Later on, he was elevated as the Chief Justice of Patna High Court based on the recommendation made by the collegium headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra. In November 2018, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India. It is pertinent to mention here that recently during a function to celebrate the diamond jubilee of the Gujarat High Court Justice Shah described PM Modi as “our most popular, loved, vibrant, and visionary leader”. In 2018 also, when he was appointed the Chief Justice of Patna High Court, he had called PM Modi “a model and a hero”. The only other Supreme Court judge in recent times to openly praise Prime Minister Modi was Justice Arun Mishra, now retired. In February 2020, Justice Mishra had said that PM Modi was an “internationally acclaimed visionaryand a versatile genius who thinks globally and acts locally”. Many prominent members of the bar had criticized his statement saying that such statements reflect poorly on the independence of the judiciary which is a basic structure of the Constitution and the judges should not display any proximity with the executive which is the biggest litigant in the courts of law and should maintain a distance from the executive functionaries to strengthen the public trust in the institution of the judiciary. Notably, the Supreme Court collegium comprising the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Madan B. Lokur, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, and N.V. Ramana on 12th December 2018 recommended elevating Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, and Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rajendra Menon to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Justice Lokur retired from the office on 30 December 2018 and Justice Arun Mishra joined collegium, a body of five senior judges. The Collegium met again on 10 January 2019 and surprisingly changed its 12 December 2018 recommendation and made a fresh recommendation to elevate Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Judge, Delhi High Court (Sl. No. 33 in the combined seniority list of all India High Court Judges) and Justice Dinesh Maheswari, the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court (Sl. No. 21 in the combined seniority of all India High Court Judges) superseding several High Court judges. On 10 May 2019, the Supreme Court collegium recommended the appointment of Gujrat High Court Judge Justice Akil Kureshi as the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, the appointment of Justice Kureshi was not notified by the Law Ministry apparently on the ground that he had passed strictures against Amit Shah in 2010 when Shah was Home Minister of Gujarat. The collegium, not to anyone’s surprise, changed its 10 May 2019 recommendation with the modification that Mr. Justice A.A. Kureshi should be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court. As usual, no reason was given for this abrupt modification. Justice Pushpa Ganediwala was recommended to be appointed as a permanent judge by the collegium on 20 January 2021. However, this decision was changed within a week following media reports after her controversial interpretation of the POCSO Act which was later stayed by the Supreme Court. This once again raises apprehensions regarding the functioning of the collegium. Whether the senior-most Supreme Court judges sitting in administrative capacity can dissect a judicial decision or based on some judgments which received massive media attention can decide the elevation or confirmation of a judge. It can set a bad precedent. Justice Ganediwala’s wrong judgment should have been overruled by the appellate court. What will collegium do if a permanent judge of the High Court delivers wrong judgments? Will such judges be impeached for delivering wrong judgments? Since its conception, the Supreme Court collegium has been functioning in an “opaque” and “non-transparent” manner. Increasingly greater reliance was placed on the principle of qualitative worthiness of a judge as opposed to a more objective parameter. But it never assigned any credible parameters for decrypting one judge more worthy than the other. In absence of any transparency, nobody knows whether collegium undertakes the examination of judgments rendered by those for consideration for either appointment or confirmation. If it takes into account then what is the weightage given to it and whether all judgments are taken into account or recent judgments? The Supreme Court while declaring NJAC unconstitutional in 2015 proposed to modify the existing Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) to plug the loopholes. The new MoP is yet to be finalized because of perpetual differences between the Collegium and the central government over the issues. A news report published in February 2018, informed that the law ministry wrote a letter to the Supreme Court in July 2017 admitting three points of disagreement: First; the central government wanted to keep the reasons for rejecting any selection confidential if it is essential in the interest of “national security and overriding public interest” and can share only with the CJI. Second; the Supreme Court was not in favour of establishing a secretariat for examining and clearing the names of judges and creating a committee of judges beyond collegium to examine the complaints against sitting judges. And third; it was also against the search and evaluation committees for selecting suitable candidates. In absence of MoP, the governmental grip over collegium has amplified immensely and has twisted into a pseudo collegium. Perhaps, the collegium is responsible for its decline. It should put its house in order. The Supreme Court collegium has failed to devise a defensible mechanism for the appointment of judges. Even in the case of qualitative assessment of a judge, a more objective and transparent criterion should be developed. These may include- number of majority judgments authored by a judge, number of dissents authored by a judge, number of concurring opinions authored by a judge, number of cases disposed of by a judge as judge of the High Court and also as the Chief Justice of the High Court, number of significant judgments authored by a judge which were later approved by the Supreme Court, etc. Such criterion can be further sharpened by defining as to what would constitute a landmark judgment and probably also the number of working days devoted by a judge in office and so on. In addition to this, seniority attached with differential weightage and his integrity, honesty, character, class-bias, caste-bias, communal leanings, political alignments, and any other attributions would bring a lot more credibility to the merit and qualitative worthiness argument of the collegium. In absence of it, merit base argument would remain a shallow drum being played often by the collegium when they prefer to favour one judge over the other disregarding seniority.Views are personal.(Prof. (Dr) Yogesh Pratap Singh is the Vice-Chancellor (I/c), NLU Odisha and Lokendra Malik is a practicing Advocate at the Supreme Court of India)Next Story
Cricket News Prithvi Shaw ruled out of India vs Australia Test series, this Karnataka batsman to replace him
For all the Latest Sports News News, Cricket News News, Download News Nation Android and iOS Mobile Apps. New Delhi: Indian opener Prithvi Shaw has been ruled out of the remainder of India versus Australia Test series. Karnataka batsman Mayank Agarwal has been called up as his replacement. Shaw was earlier ruled out of the first and second Tests against Australia after suffering an ankle injury while attempting to take a catch on day 3 at the Sydney Cricket Ground during a practice match.Shaw suffered the injury while attempting to take a catch of Cricket Australia XI batsman Max Bryant but landed awkwardly on his left ankle as he tumbled to the ground and rolled over the ropes. Immediately, Shaw grabbed his left ankle as medical staff attended to the 19-year-old youngster.The 19-year-old from Mumbai who had scored a century on debut against the West Indies in October. Shaw had won the man-of-the-series award for his 134 on Test debut against the West Indies. He became the youngest Indian to score a century on Test debut – followed by 70 and 33. The teenager was supposed to open the innings with either KL Rahul or Murali Vijay in the opening Test. After he was ruled out, Rahul and Vijay formed the opening partnership. While Rahul scored 2 and 44, Vijay managed 11 and 18. India won the first Test by 31 runs to take a 1-0 lead in the four-Test series. Agarwal was selected for the two-Test series against West Indies at home but was picked in the playing XI.
JEFF SCHORFHEIDE/Herald photoFollowing Wisconsin’s fourth-quarter collapse at Michigan State Saturday, head football coach Bret Bielema had many questions to answer at his weekly Monday press conference.In the 25-24 loss, the Badgers — players and coaches alike — beat themselves with penalties, a recurring theme that has haunted the team for weeks. Bielema was charged with a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty that led to a Michigan State touchdown, sparking the Spartans’ late comeback.“That wasn’t the most strenuous or vigorous comment that I ever made to an official, but the timing was against me,” Bielema said. “It’s not what happens in the course of a game, it’s how you react to what happens, and my reaction to that play was a poor example to [the team]. On the same account, they understand the big picture — that it’s not one play in particular, it’s not one penalty; it’s a cumulative effect of 12.”The Badgers cost themselves 121 yards on 12 penalties, eight of which occurred in the fourth quarter, making them the most penalized team in the Big Ten this year.“If you’re a football team that’s struggling to find a way to win, if you grant them automatic first downs, you’re never going to be able to get on top,” Bielema said.Experience gainedDespite Wisconsin’s current 4-5 record, less experienced players continue to follow the learning curve during their increased amounts of playing time, including junior quarterback Dustin Sherer and redshirt freshman John Clay. According to his coach, Sherer played well Saturday, but his inexperience could have cost the Badgers valuable points and time.“He knew at halftime there were some things left out there he felt he could’ve capitalized on,” Bielema said.Sherer also may have been able to take more time off the clock during the Badgers’ final drive, allowing the play clock to count down further to shave off valuable seconds. Bielema, however, was quick to defend his signal caller.“I remember (former UW quarterback) John Stocco being able to milk [the play clock] down to one second, two seconds, but he learned that through time,” Bielema said.Clay also had a productive game, rushing for a career-high 111 yards, but Bielema also mentioned the freshman’s lack of confidence.“When we call our No. 1 offense out there, P.J. (Hill) is definitely the guy eager to jump out there and John just wants to wait,” Bielema said. “He does a better job after the initial first carries. … It’s just a comfort-level thing.“You don’t want to put a player, especially a younger player, in that isn’t totally, totally comfortable with where he’s at.”Still, Bielema, of course, was quick to defend his players.“I really liked the way [Sherer] responded in the second half,” he said. “He wants to be coached-up and wants to move forward.”Kendricks out for yearA week after losing All-American tight end Travis Beckum to a broken leg, the Badgers will also likely lose tight end Lance Kendricks for the rest of the year, as he’ll be out 4-6 weeks.“Lance broke his fibula as well. Kind of a freak play, where he basically collided leg-to-leg with a Michigan State player,” Bielema said. “I couldn’t say more about the way he prepared last week and got himself ready. He was anxious to get out there and play a football game, and it’s difficult for him to sit through it. He has a lot of eligibility ahead of him.”